Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Sed Itious • 8 hours ago − > Let's remember that what Graham preaches as Axioms are his > political and social truths, as much as he'd love to claim > them as Truths.

> For example, (38) is a point based on an assumption that History is the history of the 20th century. There were extremely powerful and long lived countries with despicable civil rights. Currently China's getting more and more powerful and is hardly a beacon of civil rights.

> (31) is a point most used to excuse the abuse of minorities, for example through racism. It's inconvenient to not have the usual privilege to mistreat those with less power and money than you, truly an unacceptable burden created to limit those free, rich, privileged spirits like Graham. How dare society, the government (fill in the anti-genius malevolent force of your choice).

> As for Graham's idol Jefferson, and quoting that slave holder regarding rights and limited government, can we remember that Jefferson's ideological followers fought a abattoir of a civil war to uphold their concept of civil rights as property rights above the rights of others (that is slavery). The libertarianism Graham finds so attractive will sell the civil rights of a poorer person at the alter of the property rights of those with more economic power.

> What I'd like to understand is why tedious ex-nerds like Graham feel an irresistible urge to proselytize Ayn Randian blather. If he's at peace with his success, what is up with the insufferable sanctimoniousness? Feels like a giant dose of bubbling narcissism.

Best comment from the article, saved for posterity here.




The criticism of #38 is misplaced. Historically, powerful and rich nations were ones with progressive (for its time) civil policies. Greeks were powerful, until corruption set in. When Rome was a Republic, it was powerful. When any one individual tried to become the emperor, it begun its slow decay. It's not something that occurs over night. What PG is saying that, all else being equal, the richer nation will be more prosperous. There are going to be unaccountable natural advantage a particular region will have (Middle East), that no matter how corrupt, it will be prosperous so long as it has what the rest of the world wants.

Currently, China is getting more and more powerful, and at the same time the government is implementing and exploring more liberal policies towards civil rights. This is pretty telling.

The criticism of #31 doesn't make sense. How does PG's statement (or thought process) excuse racism? I'll copy and paste PG's statement here:

    I suspect the biggest source of moral taboos will turn out to be power struggles in which one side barely has the upper hand. That’s where you’ll find a group powerful enough to enforce taboos, but weak enough to need them.


First, it's really important that you recognize "Greeks" means many different city-states with completely different cultures.

Nations didn't exist until a couple hundred years ago.

Rome did not begin its decline with Julius Caesar.

What do you mean by "progressive (for its time) civil policies?" You seem to be following a linear model of history, and that's fine, but what exactly is progressive?

Was Sparta progressive?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: